Global Warming Conspiracy LOL

[gumboot]

While I agree that these are interesting short-term solutions, I find them to be stop-gaps at best. I mean, take hydrogen for instance; it still has to be produced with electricity so far as I know, and as long as the electricity is produced by burning fossil fuels, it seems to me we're, at best, increasing efficiency.

The obvious answer is nuclear power.

-Gumboot

 

[Free Thinkr]

The obvious answer is nuclear power.

-Gumboot

Agreed. As simple as it sounds, to me, it's the only serious answer at the moment. I'd love to see solar towers, wind farms, and the like built, but clearly, those solutions are not ready for the prime time.

 

[Oliver]

Perhaps, but which actually results in more heat in the air:

1. light passing through the air, being reflected, and passing through the air once more
2. light passing through the air, being absorbed by something on the surface, and being radiated into the air

Well, i'm not sure if i translated it the right way but radiation of
energy affects local temperatures while reflections affects the
temperature in higher parts of the atmosphere. In contrast the
warming effect seems to be higher in case of radiation - but only
local and on dead surfaces, not in case of plants. But i have to
admit that i'm guessing here.

To me, it seems obvious the answer is #2, because air doesn't absorb light very well (hence its clear nature). "Dark" objects on the ground absorb heat very well, and once absorbed, they radiate it into the air quite efficiently. When I was younger, I worked for my uncle setting up canopies. We used to set them up in parking lots occasionally, and I can tell you that the blacktop surface makes for much hotter air than grass surfaces.

Which sounds reasonable because the "chaotic" surface of grass is
absorbing sun energy, scattering the partially reflected sun rays
but there is also some kind of "herbal sweating". (Plants store water
and release it while heating up)

See, this is more what I was getting at. I'd still be pretty interested to see a comparison between, say, a grass field and a concrete sidewalk. I have no doubt whatever that blacktop radiates much more heat than plants do. But the point I was taking exception to was that reflecting was worse than absorbing. To me that definitely seems backwards; if there is an advantage, the use of the energy in photosynthesis as you describe here would seem to me to be the key.

Well, i don't have the scientific answer for you but i guess the same.
The problem is the complexity of the different atmospheric layers, so
i don't know for sure.

Right. More heat in the retained in the atmosphere when there's no snow on the field than when there's snow; even though the light passes through the atmosphere twice, it still doesn't equal the absorption that would have taken place.

Now it's getting pretty complicated because plants don't consume sun
rays for photosynthesis in winter. Fact is that the angle towards the sun
distinguish in winter and therefore sun rays are reflected in a wider angle
on "plane" surfaces like ice and snow. I don't know the temperatures within
the ionosphere and atmospheric layers below during summer and winter but
i guess it's important to answer your question.

That makes sense, but I'd wonder how long it takes heat in the lower atmosphere to radiate out into the upper atmosphere; to me, it seems that it would all even out in fairly short order, and that the main concern would be total heat absorption, be it from the surface, or the air itself.

Well, you have to consider that materials but also creatures and plants
absorb physical heat. For example: If you take a cold bottle of coke out
of the refrigerator, it will receive the environmental heat and the environ-
ment will absorb the cool temperature of the bottle. So the question would
be: How influental is earths bottom layer/ocean and how fast does it warm
up or cool down during winter and summer.

I know that the ocean does not react instantly concerning global warming,
but it is logical that water accumulates temperatures until it warms up. I
have no idea how to measure temperatures in lower atmosphere if i consider
all the above factors.

But your thought is pretty interesting and i'm sure that this connection is
already explored ... somewhere.

That still strikes me as spitting in the ocean. Bottom line, we still need tremendous amounts of energy, and as long as its produced by burning fossil fuels, there's going to be way more CO2 produced than the earth can deal with; never mind reducing the CO2 levels, we'd barely dent the rate of increase. I think a huge problem in the US, that will not be addressed, is urban sprawl. For many reasons, this is a tremendous energy-waster.

Honestly, i think that earth can deal with any ammount of CO2 - it's
just life that couldn't deal with it. But even if humanity seems partly
to be a plague, i don't think that other species deserve to suffer because
our human nature.

The biggest energy waster in america right now seems to be the
politcal opinion, guided by Oil-, Petroleum- and Coal lobby. Too bad
that america is ruled by only two parties. I think that public mind
could change political opinion and i guess it is already and finally
happening in the world biggest carbon dioxide contributor - and i
hope that the next elections will result in much better solutions
concerning the issue.

While I agree that these are interesting short-term solutions, I find them to be stop-gaps at best. I mean, take hydrogen for instance; it still has to be produced with electricity so far as I know, and as long as the electricity is produced by burning fossil fuels, it seems to me we're, at best, increasing efficiency.

That's true - but if we find a way to minimize the balance of energy
input and output, it would be a great start to support these fields
of science. Here in germany we have many projects to support any
branch of energy reductions. For example we have support for Geo-
thermal energies (Using the earths own heat to use it to heat up water
and heaters). I miss these efforts in america. The current administration
seems to think that more waste of energy means more increase in
economy, which is pretty heartless and ignorant in my opinion.

I heard that south america is primarily using bio-gas but i don't
remember the exact fuel they use right now.

IMO, if the more radical doom-sayers are correct, it's a done deal, because there is no way in hell we're reducing carbon emissions by the percentages needed to make a real difference. In fact, with China rapidly industrializing, the exact opposite seems likely to occur.

Well, America was the number one ideal for the rest of the western
world. Maybe this will be the case again if the current government leaves
their offices. At least i hope so because if America changes its course,
the rest of the world will follow. And i hope that Americas image did'nt
suffer too much since 9/11 in the eyes of the rest of the world.

 

[offchops]

Oliver,

I just pulled the names of experts from that doco i posted earlier. I've only searched on a few of them, but they appear to be genuine, and not on the bank roll of the oil Companies.

Prof. Tim Patterson
Prof. Edward Wegman
Prof. Bob Carter
Dr. Willie Soon
Dr. Madhav Khandekar
Prof. Wibjorn Karlen
Dr. Henrik Svenshark
Dr. Dick Morgan
Dr. Fred Goldberg
Hans H.J. Labohm
Steve McIntyre
Dr. Chris Landsea


Perhaps you could check them out?

 

[Pardalis]

At least i hope so because if America changes its course, the rest of the world will follow.

Other big countries like China will have a big role to play too, it's not just America the problem.

 

[Oliver]

Oliver,

I just pulled the names of experts from that doco i posted earlier. I've only searched on a few of them, but they appear to be genuine, and not on the bank roll of the oil Companies.

Prof. Tim Patterson
Prof. Edward Wegman
Prof. Bob Carter
Dr. Willie Soon
Dr. Madhav Khandekar
Prof. Wibjorn Karlen
Dr. Henrik Svenshark
Dr. Dick Morgan
Dr. Fred Goldberg
Hans H.J. Labohm
Steve McIntyre
Dr. Chris Landsea

Perhaps you could check them out?

*LOL* Do i work for the FBI? Watch this movie - you will
remember some faces in it if you have watched the "swindle":

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

ETA: @Pardalis

Other big countries like China will have a big role to play too, it's not just America the problem.

That's true - but without america everyone can use the argument
that "the biggest polluter and most powerful country in the world does
not care - so why should we?"

 

[Peephole]

To many of us, it's disturbing that the same people who were insisting in the seventies that a new Ice Age was just around the corner have made a 180 degree turn and are now ramming their latest revelation down our throats.

That's a myth. Not a single article in a scientific journal predicted a new ice age.

And even if they had, it wouldn't really matter as climate science has changed dramatically over the past 30 years.

All of the left's most endearing traits are on display: Their opponents can't merely be reading the same data and coming to a different conclusion. No, they have to be scoundrels who are in the pockets of the oil industry.

Yeah man, it's not like the oil companies are literally paying scientists to reach certain conclusions or something.

Oh wait, they are.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2004399,00.html

Of course, the side that wants to cripple capitalist economies, while ignoring third-world polluters, can't possibly have any political agendas.

You think the whole global warming thing is a conspiracy by Third World countries?

We should encourage debates between qualified representatives of the competing views. Eventually, we should be able to get a sense of where the truth lies.

That was sort of the idea behind the IPCC. Guess what their conclusion was?

 

[Pardalis]

That's true - but without america everyone can use the argument that "the biggest polluter and most powerful country in the world does not care - so why should we?"

Good point.

 

[Peephole]

Are there any stats available on the numbers of climate scientists on either side of this Climate Change debate?

I don't think there are any recent statistics on which side climate scientists support, no. But there's the Oreskes study:

A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change. The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". It was also pointed out, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

And here's a list of institutions that agree with the IPCC:

* Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academié des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Irish Academy
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
* State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
* Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
* American Geophysical Union (AGU)
* National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
* American Meteorological Society (AMS)
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Oliver,

I just pulled the names of experts from that doco i posted earlier. I've only searched on a few of them, but they appear to be genuine, and not on the bank roll of the oil Companies.

Prof. Tim Patterson
Prof. Edward Wegman
Prof. Bob Carter
Dr. Willie Soon
Dr. Madhav Khandekar
Prof. Wibjorn Karlen
Dr. Henrik Svenshark
Dr. Dick Morgan
Dr. Fred Goldberg
Hans H.J. Labohm
Steve McIntyre
Dr. Chris Landsea


Perhaps you could check them out?

Since I haven't seen the documentary, I'm wondering in what context some of these people were presented. I certainly don't think that Chris Landsea is in the global warming denial camp. He has only said that he doesn't believe that global warming has enhanced the strength of hurricanes (not surprising, because the warming has been greatest at high latitudes).

 

[Free Thinkr]

Honestly, i think that earth can deal with any ammount of CO2 - it's
just life that couldn't deal with it. But even if humanity seems partly
to be a plague, i don't think that other species deserve to suffer because
our human nature.

If a tree falls in the woods, and no one's there to hear it, does it make a sound? My point with this cliche is that, my only concern for animals is in their relation to man. If mankind is doomed, I couldn't care less what becomes of animals (nor could they, because they're animals, and don't have such complex concerns as what will become of their species).

The biggest energy waster in america right now seems to be the
politcal opinion, guided by Oil-, Petroleum- and Coal lobby.

Nonsense. Fossil fuel lobbies don't make people waste energy. Why must everyone use this as a political tool? Is it any surprise that so many people are skeptical, when such arguments frequently come up?

Too bad
that america is ruled by only two parties.

Yeah, well, multiple parties didn't work that well for Germany.

I think that public mind
could change political opinion and i guess it is already and finally
happening in the world biggest carbon dioxide contributor - and i
hope that the next elections will result in much better solutions
concerning the issue.

The body public shapes the body politic, not the other way around. People need to stop expecting the government to fix everything for them.

That's true - but if we find a way to minimize the balance of energy
input and output, it would be a great start to support these fields
of science.

Subsidize, you mean. Which ones do we subsidize?

Here in germany we have many projects to support any
branch of energy reductions. For example we have support for Geo-
thermal energies (Using the earths own heat to use it to heat up water
and heaters). I miss these efforts in america. The current administration
seems to think that more waste of energy means more increase in
economy, which is pretty heartless and ignorant in my opinion.

I don't think it really has much to do with wasting energy at all; where the government has failed is by throwing good money at bad, such as subsidizing the oil industry. Many people seem to forget that Bush did push for more nuclear energy, and was roundly criticized. I'll agree that the oil subsidies are scandalous, but I don't expect that to change very much with the next administration.

Well, America was the number one ideal for the rest of the western
world. Maybe this will be the case again if the current government leaves
their offices. At least i hope so because if America changes its course,
the rest of the world will follow. And i hope that Americas image did'nt
suffer too much since 9/11 in the eyes of the rest of the world.

If the rest of the world wants to kill themselves off out of spite, the world probably isn't worth saving.

 

[Peephole]

The biggest energy waster in america right now seems to be the politcal opinion, guided by Oil-, Petroleum- and Coal lobby. Too bad that america is ruled by only two parties. I think that public mind could change political opinion and i guess it is already and finally happening in the world biggest carbon dioxide contributor - and ihope that the next elections will result in much better solutions concerning the issue.

Oh, don't worry to much about the US, there's already nine states (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Massachusetts, California) and 418 cities who are taking action. The rest will come around, with or without the federal government.

 

[Oliver]

If a tree falls in the woods, and no one's there to hear it, does it make a sound? My point with this cliche is that, my only concern for animals is in their relation to man. If mankind is doomed, I couldn't care less what becomes of animals (nor could they, because they're animals, and don't have such complex concerns as what will become of their species).

First of all: A tree falling in the woods makes a sound - no matter
if anyone is listening or not.

Your argument about animals seems to be a fallacy. Children
don't have complex concerns, why should we care if they get
killed in traffic accidents?

The answer is responsibility. We are more intelligent, therefore
we have to be responsible for our actions concerning animals
and the environment in general - or in other words: We see and
understand a problem - we act on it instead ignoring it.

Nonsense. Fossil fuel lobbies don't make people waste energy. Why must everyone use this as a political tool? Is it any surprise that so many people are skeptical, when such arguments frequently come up?

You turned the argument upside down. Fossil fuel lobbies (in america)
did'nt care about their pollution >>> in the past. Now if the industry does
not care, the government has to pass laws forcing the industry to do
something. And this is what the american government didn't do all the
time - i guess because the industries impact to politic decisions is
immense concerning their business interests.

Therefore my argument is not:
"Fossil fuel lobbies don't make people waste energy."

but:
"Fossil fuel lobbies don't make people waste less energy."

Yeah, well, multiple parties didn't work that well for Germany.

Uhm ... We have 13 electable parties and it works very well - beside
endless discussions...

The body public shapes the body politic, not the other way around. People need to stop expecting the government to fix everything for them.

Subsidize, you mean. Which ones do we subsidize?

Oh come on - you know that most people are pretty negligently.
They don't care until their roofs are burning and then they whine
all day long why the government didn't do something.

Frankly i don't know the names of current subvention programs in
america concerning alternative energies. I know that california is
running several programs for renewable energies and decreasing
pollution and there is the pending "Clean Energy Act 2007" to
"reduce American dependency on foreign oil "by investing in clean,
renewable, and alternative energy resources, promoting new emerging
energy technologies, developing greater efficiency, and creating a
Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserves."

I don't think it really has much to do with wasting energy at all; where the government has failed is by throwing good money at bad, such as subsidizing the oil industry. Many people seem to forget that Bush did push for more nuclear energy, and was roundly criticized. I'll agree that the oil subsidies are scandalous, but I don't expect that to change very much with the next administration.

There is still hope that the public mind will force politics to change
their course concerning enviromenal issues. So far the Bush admin-
istration did quite the opposite concerning CO2 - so Bush's nuclear
energy efforts were new to me:

Environmental policy and global warming Main article: Environment from Domestic policy of the George W. Bush administration Upon arriving in office in 2001, President Bush withdrew United States support of the then-pending Kyoto Protocol, an amendment to the United Nations Convention on Climate Change seeking to impose mandatory targets for reducing "greenhouse gas" emissions - carbon dioxide emitted in the burning of fossil fuels. Bush asserted that uncertainties existed in the climate change science regarding the degree to which human activity is the cause and cited concerns regarding the treaty's impact on U.S. industry and economy and the fact that China and India had not yet agreed.[64]



The Bush Administration's stance on global warming, and in particular its questioning the consensus of scientists, would remain controversial in the scientific and environmental communities during his presidency. In 2004, the Director of NASA's Goddard Institute, James Hansen, came out publicly and harshly accusing the Administration of misinforming the public by suppressing the scientific evidence of the dangers of greenhouse gases, saying the Bush Administration wanted to hear only scientific results that “fit predetermined, inflexible positions” and edited reports to make the dangers sound less threatening in what he asserted was "direct opposition to the most fundamental precepts of science."[65][66]



President Bush had said that he has consistently noted that global warming is a serious problem but asserted there is a "debate over whether it's manmade or naturally caused" and maintained that regardless of that debate his administration was working on plans to make America less dependent on foreign oil "for economic and national security reasons."[67] In his 2007 State of the Union Address, President Bush renewed his pledge to work toward diminished reliance on foreign oil by reducing fossil fuel consumption and increasing alternative fuel production.[68]


Announced by President Bush in 2002,[69] the Clear Skies Initiative was aimed at amending the Clean Air Act to further reduce air pollution through the use of emissions trading programs. The goal of the initiative was to drastically cut the sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury emissions of power plants over the course of 15 years, while saving consumers millions of dollars.[69] The initiative has been criticized for what its opponents see as a weakening of the current regulations in place. According to critics, it will allow higher levels of pollutants than are permitted under the Clean Air Act, will cut pollution levels in some communities at the expense of increasing pollution levels in other communities, and will not go into effect until after the existing law does.[70] The initiative was introduced to Congress as the Clear Skies Act of 2003, but failed to make it out of committee.

If the rest of the world wants to kill themselves off out of spite, the world probably isn't worth saving.

*LOL* That was pretty pessimistic. We have a pretty neat phrase
here: "Hope is the last thing that dies."

 

[Oliver]

Oh, don't worry to much about the US, there's already nine states (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Massachusetts, California) and 418 cities who are taking action. The rest will come around, with or without the federal government.

I know and i appreciate all efforts - but it is also no bad thing
to wake up people. Not to shock them but to make them more
aware concerning their and their childrens future environment.

 

[offchops]

Oliver,

I didn't have time to check out your video yesterday, which is why i was hoping those names might have helped you to identify them.

I have just watched it, and i found no familiar faces, and none of the names i posted were even mentioned in your video.

 

[offchops]

I watched it some days ago and i could'nt find any data or "scientist"
that is not refutable. Most of the experts in this movie are paid by the
oil and petroleum lobby. I have no idea why any british media would
try to spread such semi-true propaganda...

Again, do you have a source on that?

 

[Brainache]

I don't think there are any recent statistics on which side climate scientists support, no. But there's the Oreskes study:
And here's a list of institutions that agree with the IPCC:

* Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academié des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Irish Academy
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
* State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
* Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
* American Geophysical Union (AGU)
* National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
* American Meteorological Society (AMS)
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

OK so the theory of AGW, at least amongst Climatologists is about as controversial as Newton's laws are amongst Physicists.

I think that says a lot. If the split was 50/50 or even 75/25 I guess the deniers might have a point.

The fact that AGW's predictions are a bit varied I suppose speaks to the enormous number of variables and their interdependent nature. The more variables and the values you assign to them that you plug into your computer model, the less predictable it becomes. It's too complex to know just which butterfly's wing flap will cause the hurricane.

 

[Oliver]

Oliver,

I didn't have time to check out your video yesterday, which is why i was hoping those names might have helped you to identify them.

I have just watched it, and i found no familiar faces, and none of the names i posted were even mentioned in your video.

Do you remember the guys in the swindle movie saying
"I'm not paid by the oil industry but i would be happy if
they would pay me"? These guys are mentioned within
the other movie. Just click the link to jump to the part
about these guys:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8012901811669462665#18m54s

After that do a research for your own about the mentioned
"Scientists".

I have to look into the other names you mentioned but
i don't get your intention here. I simply don't know every
background or name of 10,000 scientists working on global
change all over the world. So you might check their
credibility by your own. However - the theories mentioned
in this movie are not true in my knowledge about this
issue. But if you have questions, feel free to ask them.

To me the whole "Swindle" Movie is a joke, trying to ridicule
the whole issue as if CO2 is no problem at all, it's all natural
and quote: "look at the sun, it's sooo huge and earth is sooo
small".

 

[Oliver]

Oh, and the first scientist from the movie considers
to fill a lawsuit against the "documentary":

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2031457,00.html

Climate scientist 'duped to deny global warming'

[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Ben Goldacre and David Adam
Sunday March 11, 2007
The Observer

[/FONT] A Leading US climate scientist is considering legal action after he says he was duped into appearing in a Channel 4 documentary that claimed man-made global warming is a myth. Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, was 'grossly distorted' and 'as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two'.

He says his comments in the film were taken out of context and that he would not have agreed to take part if he had known it would argue that man-made global warming was not a serious threat. 'I thought they were trying to educate the public about the complexities of climate change,' he said. 'This seems like a deliberate attempt to exploit someone who is on the other side of the issue.' He is considering a complaint to Ofcom, the broadcast regulator.

 

[AZCat]

Since I haven't seen the documentary, I'm wondering in what context some of these people were presented. I certainly don't think that Chris Landsea is in the global warming denial camp. He has only said that he doesn't believe that global warming has enhanced the strength of hurricanes (not surprising, because the warming has been greatest at high latitudes).

It gets pretty complicated when you start discussing the relationship between particular phenomena and global warming. Hurricanes, for example, are highly dependent on the surface temperatures of ocean water, which in turn is highly dependent on the amount of total solar irradiation. Solar irradiation is determined by the sunspot cycle, which I think is 11 years, so you see the same period of oscillation in the frequency of hurricanes. Whether or not global temperatures are increasing the frequency also is difficult to determine because you have to compare cycles and we just don't have enough information yet to do that.